I want to edit photos using CS and LR. I'm just a hobbyist, not a pro.

There are some who edit photos using laptops. Others will only use a 22" or larger desktop monitor.Actually, 17" seems like a pretty good size for editing. So I want to know what I will miss by using a 17" laptopdisplay over a large monitor? Does using a desktop monitor result in better post processed images, or easier topost process? As you can guess, I never have used a desktop monitor for pp

In my opinion...a laptop is adequate for processing, especially for a hobbyist.

Some pros will tell you that editing with anything other than a desktop is going to result in shoddy work.

My only problem is the computer you link to comes in at almost $1700. Spec-wise...you're getting hosed. Is the draw to this laptop the 4k display? Because at the 17" screen size, I don't think it's going to give you much of an advantage.

If the 4K is the must-have, get a adequately spec'd laptop and buy a 4k monitor. A quick look on best buy gives a 17" i7, 16gb, 1TB for under $900. Slap in a 500GB SSD and buy an enclosure for the old hard drive for $200, and buy a 28" 4K monitor for $500...and you've still got $100 to buy something for your wife so she doesn't go into conniptions with all the boxes you're bringing home.

Or spend that last $100 on a color calibrator, and hide the boxes well.

agrandexpression wrote in post #17817584In my opinion...a laptop is adequate for processing, especially for a hobbyist.

Some pros will tell you that editing with anything other than a desktop is going to result in shoddy work.

Is the draw to this laptop the 4k display? Because at the 17" screen size, I don't think it's going to give you much of an advantage.

My draw to this laptop is portability, being able to use it at different locations. Actually, I've never seen a 4k display. But I've read thatIPS displays are best for post processing images. This laptop has an IPS display.

Right now I'm trying to find out what compromises I'll have to deal with if I select a laptop over a desktop. Well, smaller size is one.I also found out that laptop displays don't offer all possible colors & gradients as a desktop monitor. I don't know how big of a concern this is.

You can edit using a laptop with a good IPS display if the laptop is powerful enough. My biggest frustration with any laptop I've used, Mac or PC, is that the keyboards are a compromise and you can't edit efficiently using the built-in track-pad. So, to get a good experience I'd need to connect a proper keyboard, along with a Wacom tablet and mouse.

17" is also small for editing, but workable. Right now (for me) I'm starting to find my 24" NEC to be a bit small. I'd like to have a bigger monitor that I can set back further to give me more desk space.

You can get a lot more machine for the money with a desktop. Again, for me, I'd give up portability to get a better machine for the same money (including monitor and keyboard) or spend a bit less for the same.

Perfectly Frank wrote in post #17818649My draw to this laptop is portability, being able to use it at different locations. Actually, I've never seen a 4k display. But I've read thatIPS displays are best for post processing images. This laptop has an IPS display.

Right now I'm trying to find out what compromises I'll have to deal with if I select a laptop over a desktop. Well, smaller size is one.I also found out that laptop displays don't offer all possible colors & gradients as a desktop monitor. I don't know how big of a concern this is.

I agree...IPS are ideal for processing images. But you can find an IPS laptop for a much less price point.

The deal with 4K monitors is that you get really good quality panels that are super sharp, however, due to pixel density, you get no added workspace, and instead you rely on scaling. Essentially, a 4K laptop has little functionality advantage over a 1080p laptop. I happen to have a 13" with 2560x1440 resolution, and it simply is no better than my 17" 1080p laptop, probably worse even. You want as much size as possible with a pixel density around 100. That means 27" 2560x1440 or 34" 3440x1440 or 40" 4K. A 27" 4K has no advantage over a 27" 2560x1440 other than that added crispness. I think the sweetness is the 34" 21:9 ratio. The 40" I tried was good, but it has like a stadium type viewing, a tad too big for comfort, which made navigation a little tough.

Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

Latest registered member is Bill_NY729 guests, 338 members onlineSimultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.